Conduct Unbecoming

WALL STREET JOURNAL ^ | November 25, 2003 | DAVID GELERNTER

[OESY]

"Being a good loser" is not a popular topic nowadays. I can't remember any "Good Losing for Dummies" titles in the bookstore, and we don't offer courses in the area. How should you behave if you are planning to win a Nobel prize and then don't? Not like Raymond Damadian, celebrated pioneer of MRI-style medical imaging and outraged non-recipient of this year's Nobel Prize for medicine. He tells us he was in "agony" when he got the news that two other MRI trailblazers had been picked but he hadn't -- and I believe him, but can't figure out why I should care.

[OESY]

Dr. Damadian probably deserved Nobel recognition, but Gelernter makes a valid point, which paraphrased is: The reward for work well-done is to have done it. A look at the recipients of such prestigious awards such as the Nobel Peace Prize and Pulitzer Prize demonstrate how often they are given for spurious reasons.

[jjm2111]

Damadian only makes himself look pathetic with all the whining. Most people don't even know that there IS a Nobel prize for medicine.

[greatvikingone]

It would rock the world of Science, though, if they did give the Nobel to a Christian!

[Uncle Sausage]

Virtue is its own reward.

[boris]

" If you want to dye your hair green, stick jewelry up your nose "

See This:

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Virtue is its own reward.

Quite often, it is. And the Nobel committee is ill suited to carry out Mr. Nobel's will--for the very good reason that historical perspective is needed to determine with any accuracy the utility of a person's contribution.

The presence of Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat on the one hand, and the absence of Ronald Reagan on the other, tells you all you need to know about the Nobel "peace" prize. It is given by the feckless to the feckless. Truly courageous leaders need not apply.

As to the contributions of science, usually the truly outstanding contributions--like Nobel's--produce fortunes like Nobel's by the time a Nobel Committee can figure out that the contribution was in fact outstanding. Thus the committee would have looked foolish giving the prize to Henry Ford, or Thomas Edison.

The salient exception in my mind is Tim Berners-Lee, the inventer of the WWW. Obviously a fabulous invention, but one which the inventer did not capitalize on in any significant way. But in what particular year should he be awarded?